Indiana Deer Hunter Survey 2006
|
|
- Eric Herbert Griffith
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1
2 Indiana Deer Hunter Survey 2006 Final Report October 2006 Presented to Indiana Department of Natural Resources Division of Fish and Wildlife by Daniel J. Witter, Ph.D., and Cortney Lamprecht D.J. Case & Associates 317 E. Jefferson Blvd. Mishawaka, IN PH: FAX:
3 Executive Summary From mid-june to mid-august, 2006, a mail survey of Indiana resident deer hunters who purchased 2005 Indiana deer hunting licenses was conducted for the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). A stratified, random sample of 10,480 Indiana resident deer hunters was polled using contact information provided by IDNR through its point-of-sale database. After removing undeliverable addresses (changed addresses, passings, refusals) final response was 47% (4,566 respondents); 62 of these indicated they had not deer hunted in the past 4 years and were removed from analysis, for a final response group of 4,504. Error tolerances for this sample are +/-1 percentage point (95% confidence level). Key findings revealed: Almost two-thirds of Indiana deer hunters characterize deer hunting as one of my most important recreational activities (62%), and 22% said deer hunting was their most important recreational activity. Indiana urbanites who are deer hunters are more likely than Indiana suburbanites and rural dwellers to characterize deer hunting as my most important recreational activity. Most Indiana deer hunters tended to rate the overall success of Indiana s deer management program as good (55% statewide). More deer hunters were likely to evaluate the program as excellent (10% statewide) than poor (4% statewide). About one-quarter (26% statewide) characterized the program as fair. When asked to express their sentiments toward Indiana s one-buck-rule as a continuing regulation, 48% of Indiana deer hunters responded strongly support, and 23% said moderately support. Indiana deer hunters who used only archery gear to deer hunt were especially supportive of one-buck-rule (64% strongly support ), as well as those deer hunters using archery and muzzleloader gear only (62% strongly support). Indiana deer hunters thought one-buck-rule (1) helped the state s deer herd management, (2) provided them opportunity to harvest a buck (small or large), (3) increased their opportunity to harvest a big buck, and (4) increased the number of bucks they see. Neutral sentiment was expressed toward the effects of one-buck-rule on increasing the number of antlerless deer seen, number of big bucks seen, and limiting deer hunters chances to harvest the bucks they want. Indiana deer hunters as a group did not agree that one-buck-rule diminished their enjoyment of Indiana deer hunting. Of the various geographies over which one-buck-rule might be implemented (countyspecific, block of counties, public land only, private land only), Indiana deer hunters indicated support for (42% strongly, 22% moderately) one-buck-rule statewide in Indiana. When asked if they would support a 3-year pilot-return to the former two-buck-rule, 27% said they would strongly support the proposal, and another 27% said they moderately support it, certainly reflecting confidence in Indiana Department of Natural Resources to do what s best for the state s deer herd and hunters, in light of their supportive sentiment toward one-buck-rule
4 Many (71%) respondents said they were either very satisfied (29%) or somewhat satisfied (42%) with their overall hunting experiences. Moreover, majorities of hunters were either very or somewhat satisfied with chances they had to shoot an antlerless deer (70%), number of deer they saw (67%), and number of deer they harvested (53%). Slightly less than a majority said they were either very or somewhat satisfied with their chances to shoot an antlered buck (47%), and about one-quarter (24%) said they were satisfied with their chances to shoot a big buck. Hunters were asked how many deer they have to harvest in a year to feel satisfied with their harvest. Over half (51%) indicated they need to harvest 1 antlerless deer a season to feel satisfied with their harvest; and indeed, a majority of this group (64%) reported success in harvesting an antlerless deer (on average per year, over four years). In similar fashion, 76% of Indiana deer hunters said they need harvest only 1 buck to feel satisfied with their harvest in a year; and of this group, 64% reported success in harvesting a buck (on average per year, over four years). Indiana deer hunters expressed the degree to which they trusted each of a variety of groups to represent the interests of deer hunters like them. Accorded most trust were avid/experienced deer hunters, Indiana Department of Natural Resources, deer biologists, businesses promoting deer products, all deer hunters, and deer hunting guides. Accorded low trust were outdoor writers/tv personalities, the general public, legislators, and high fence operators. The average Indiana deer hunter is a middle-aged male who grew up in a predominantly rural setting and still resides in a rural area, who started deer hunting before 1975, and spends between $250 to $1,000 each year on deer hunting. However, 6% of Indiana deer hunters are females who show high affinity for deer hunting as a recreational activity, and who use a variety of hunting equipment. Analysis of the Indiana deer hunter population by age provides some encouragement that younger participants are being recruited to the activity. Analysis of reasons that Indiana deer hunters enjoy the activity revealed the top 5 to be getting outdoors, getting close to nature, spending time with family and friends, introducing a child to hunting, and for food/meat. Problems that Indiana deer hunters encounter are finding a place to hunt, city growth, poor hunter ethics, and hunting pressure. Although most Indiana deer hunters continue to gain no-fee access to land for deer hunting, the 6% of Indiana deer hunters that paid for access to deer hunt in 2002 and 2003 increased to 7% in 2004 and to 8% in Though the confidence intervals overlap on these percentages the 6% ranges statistically from 5% to 7% and 8% ranges from 7% to 9%--this increase in percentage of hunters paying an access fee may be the harbinger of a real change occurring on the Indiana deer hunting landscape. Analysis of participation by Indiana deer hunters from year to year suggests that there s significant churn, with hunters choosing to participate 1 year, then not the next. Indiana s Point-of-Sale database will allow quantification of this churn, with obvious implications for marketing to (or reminding) hunters to buy their deer licenses each year
5 Introduction Perhaps the wild animal that appeals most to American hunters is the deer. Not only is it pursued by more hunters and accounts for more hunter-days-afield than any other wild animal in the United States (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002), but interest in this quarry has given rise to a deer hunting mystique replete with special traditions, techniques, equipment and today, TV programs. Governmental interest in the welfare of deer extends well into America s past. Before 1720, most colonies had adopted seasonal restrictions on shooting deer (Wildlife Management Institute, 1975), though early regulations did little to prevent the near-demise of some populations due to habitat loss and market hunting. Initial efforts in deer management came in the 1930s and 1940s with restocking and habitat management (Trefethen, 1975). Restoration continued with a shift to deer population management in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. In the 1980s, there was growing recognition that many of the concerns arising about deer management were no longer issues of restoration and population maintenance, but rather deer abundance or overabundance. In particular, the white-tailed deer s (Odocoileus virginianus) remarkable adaptability to urban and suburban settings brought the animal in sharp contact with a rapidly urbanizing U.S. landscape. Issues of deer/crop depredation, deer/vehicle strikes, and deer disease, once only concerns in rural areas, became significant issues in suburbia. Deer moved into urban and suburban backyards, often lured by food provided by well-meaning residents, only to end up feasting on the costly ornamental shrubs, cultivars, and gardens that suburbanites planted, much to residents dismay. Too, deer movement across suburbia s twisting maze of roads and interstates inevitably led to tragic accidents; and the close proximity of deer to human population concentrations raised worries of disease, whether real or imagined. Yet the white-tailed deer s mystique continues to grow even today, marked by the emergence over the last decade of a huge commercial market that promotes an astonishing array of deer hunting paraphernalia calls, scents, tree-stands, ground-blinds, decoys, camouflaged clothing, ever-more-sophisticated archery and muzzleloader technologies, and on and on. And the virtues and practically-guaranteed effectiveness of these products are promoted in a similarly astonishing parade of weekly TV productions on the Outdoor Channel, Versus (formerly OLN), and others that feature episode after episode of show-hosts harvesting magnificent antlered bucks for most hunters, the sighting of which would constitute a lifetime memory much less harvesting one of these magnificent animals. This fascination with big bucks indeed, the simple recognition that many male deer will develop relatively large antlers if allowed to live to 3 years and beyond has promoted a philosophy or management emphasis promoting large-antlered deer. Emerging from the large, privately-managed tracts in Texas and the southeastern United States, and then spreading to other parts of the U.S., the argument goes that state wildlife agencies should embrace the same big buck thinking and management practices that private ranches and hunting clubs have instituted to produce large-antlered deer. But whether it s possible or practical for state wildlife agencies to do this even if public will wanted it remains to be seen. Agencies must balance the often divergent expectations and opinions of hunters, landowners, and the general public about deer across vast state geographies not just one ranch or farm
6 So, in this dizzying swirl of deer-mania practically unimaginable even a decade ago when state wildlife agencies were more concerned with what appeared to be rapid emergence and influence of an anti-hunting constituency in the United States agencies are still very interested in what the average deer hunter thinks. Ultimately, it was the political and financial will of the average hunter that was instrumental in restoring the white-tailed deer, and it is in the interest of letting this hunter be heard that the following study was conducted. Background In spring, 2006, Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) contracted with D.J. Case & Associates (DJ Case) to administer a survey of Indiana deer hunters the Indiana Deer Hunter Survey 2006 (IDHS06). Objectives of this survey were to measure Indiana deer hunters : Sentiments toward the importance of deer hunting in their lives; Overall perceptions and satisfactions with Indiana deer numbers, the state s deer herd management in general, and in particular, opinions of Indiana s one-buck-rule ( OBR ); Past involvement and current interest in deer hunting, including recent experiences, motivations for hunting, and selected hunter characteristics. IDNR staff and DJ Case collaborated to develop survey content, as well as refine survey methodology and review the questionnaire, cover letters, and reminder postcards (Appendix A). Questionnaire revisions continued until mid-may 2006, when the questionnaire was sent to printing at the Assessment Resource Center (ARC) at the University of Missouri, the organization that printed, mailed, tracked, and machine-scanned the questionnaires, then provided the dataset. Methods Sampling Frame IDNR provided DJ Case with a stratified, random sample of names and addresses selected from its point-of-sale (POS) database, totaling 10,500 resident deer hunters purchasing Indiana deer hunting licenses in These names were amply distributed across the license types available to deer hunters in Indiana; that is, oversampling license types to allow analysis by licenses that otherwise might be effectively undersampled in a simple, random sample of Indiana deer hunters (such as Lifetime and Youth licenses): Archery License: 4,000 Firearms License: 2,000 Muzzleloader License 2,000 Lifetime License 2,000 Youth License 500 DJ Case first examined this dataset for duplicate names (multiple license purchases), omitting each found. Then, addresses were checked at the U.S. Postal Service for
7 deliverability; 909 undeliverable names and addresses were identified, revealing the somewhat surprising fact that 9% of deer hunter addresses from the IDNR POS database were already outdated a mere 6-months following Indiana s 2005 deer seasons. These non-deliverables were replaced with new contacts of the same license types, resulting in a final contact number of 10,480. Survey Response A 47% response (4,566 respondents) was achieved by August 8, 2006, the cut-off to accept surveys (Table 1). The survey was conducted in two waves: Wave 1: This first postal wave consisted of a questionnaire (Appendix A) sent by first class mail to each of the 10,480 in the original sample (postmarked, Columbia, MO, June 16, 2006). A separate cover letter (signed by IDNR s Director Kyle Hupfer, with IDNR contact information, Appendix A) explained the importance of the survey and solicited the hunter s participation. Table 1. Fate of IDHS06 Questionnaires, and Composition (by %) of Response Group by License Type. Fate of Surveys N Percent A. Total Surveys Sent B. Undeliverable 671 C. Deceased 1 D. Total Surveys Received 9808 A (B + C) = D E. Wave 1 Paper Completed % F. Wave 1 Web Completed % G. Wave 2 Paper Completed % H. Wave 2 Web Completed 88.9% I. Total Surveys Completed 4, % E + F + G + H = I J. Refused participation W1 3 K. Refused participation W2 2 L. Total Response I + J + K = L 4,566 Lifetime License Archery License Muzzleloader License Firearm License Youth License Total 19% % % % 858 4% The questionnaire was typeset in 4-page machine-scannable (response-bubble) format, with a final open-ended, Any additional comments or suggestions. A postage-paid return envelope was enclosed. A web option encouraged respondent to complete the survey on-line (internet) if more convenient than responding by mail ( A first class reminder postcard (Appendix A) was sent to each hunter the week following initial contact. Each survey was opened individually upon its return and examined to correct any data entry issues (mainly, ensuring response bubbles were completely filled-in by the respondent). Wave 2: A second mailing consisting of replacement questionnaire, cover letter signed by Director Kyle Hupfer appealing for hunter participation, and postage paid return envelope was sent to each non-respondent on July 26, 2006, followed shortly by a last-chance postcard. In summary, the final tally of returned, usable forms (after removing undeliverable surveys) was 4,566 (47%); DJ Case s pre-survey project prospectus to IDNR estimated a 50% response
Central Hills Prairie Deer Goal Setting Block G9 Landowner and Hunter Survey Results
Central Hills Prairie Deer Goal Setting Block G9 Landowner and Hunter Survey Results Table of Contents Public Surveys for Deer Goal Setting... 1 Methods... 1 Hunter Survey... 2 Demographics... 2 Population
More informationNorthwest Parkland-Prairie Deer Goal Setting Block G7 Landowner and Hunter Survey Results
Northwest Parkland-Prairie Deer Goal Setting Block G7 Landowner and Hunter Survey Results Table of Contents Public Surveys for Deer Goal Setting... 1 Methods... 1 Hunter Survey... 2 Demographics... 2 Population
More informationAN ASSESSMENT OF NEW JERSEY DEER HUNTER OPINION ON EXPANDING ANTLER POINT RESTRICTION (APR) REGULATIONS IN DEER MANAGEMENT ZONES 28, 30, 31, 34 AND 47
AN ASSESSMENT OF NEW JERSEY DEER HUNTER OPINION ON EXPANDING ANTLER POINT RESTRICTION (APR) REGULATIONS IN DEER MANAGEMENT ZONES 28, 30, 31, 34 AND 47 Survey mailed: April 2010 Data analyzed: June 2010
More informationFull summaries of all proposed rule changes, including DMU boundary descriptions, are included in the additional background material.
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) implemented a public outreach and input process in 2013 and 2014 in management Zones A, B and C. The goal of this process was to present the
More informationHunter Perceptions of Chronic Wasting Disease in Illinois
HumanDimensions R e s e a r c h P r o g r a m Hunter Perceptions of Chronic Wasting Disease in Illinois Joel Brunsvold, Director Illinois Department of Natural Resources Paul Vehlow Federal Aid Coordinator
More information2012 Emiquon Duck Hunting
2012 Emiquon Duck Hunting Evaluation Survey Report Wildlife Harvest and Human Dimensions Research Program Prepared by Craig A. Miller Ph.D., Erin E. Harper and Meghan E. McCleary Illinois Natural History
More informationDMU 038 Jackson County
DMU 038 Jackson County Area Description The Jackson Deer Management Unit (DMU), or DMU 038, lies in the Southern Lower Peninsula (SLP) region and covers Jackson County. The DMU consists of five percent
More informationARE WHITE-TAILED DEER VERMIN?
ARE WHITE-TAILED DEER VERMIN? By E. W. Grimes, Former Director/President, Maryland State Chapter of the Quality Deer Management Association I ve tried in the past when writing articles to be positive with
More informationALTERNATIVE DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS. 12A, 12B, 13A, 13B, 16A, 45A, 45B, 45C, and White-tailed Deer Units
ALTERNATIVE DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS 12A, 12B, 13A, 13B, 16A, 45A, 45B, 45C, and White-tailed Deer Units Arizona Game and Fish Department April 4, 2006 Alternative Deer Management
More informationDMU 046 Lenawee County Deer Management Unit
DMU 046 Lenawee County Deer Management Unit Area Description The Lenawee Deer Management Unit (DMU), or DMU 046, lies in the Southeastern Lower Peninsula (SLP) region and covers Lenawee County. The majority
More informationDMU 008 Barry County Deer Management Unit
DMU 8 Barry County Deer Management Unit Area Description The Barry County Deer Management Unit (DMU) 8 is in the Southwest Region and was once part of the Bellevue deer management unit 38. Bellevue DMU
More informationDeer and Deer Management in Central New York: Local Residents Interests and Concerns
Deer and Deer Management in Central New York: Local Residents Interests and Concerns NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Fish, Wildlife & Marine Resources and the Human Dimensions
More informationTennessee Black Bear Public Opinion Survey
Tennessee Black Bear Public Opinion Survey Executive Summary 2012 Survey TWRA Technical Report 12 02 This electronic publication was developed by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency s Division of Wildlife
More informationIllinois Hunter Harvest Report
HumanDimensions R e s e a r c h P r o g r a m 2012-2013 Illinois Hunter Harvest Report Illinois Natural History Survey Prairie Research Institute University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Federal Aid
More informationHunter and Angler Expenditures, Characteristics, and Economic Effects, North Dakota,
Agribusiness and Applied Economics Report No. 507-S January 2003 Hunter and Angler Expenditures, Characteristics, and Economic Effects, North Dakota, 2001-2002 Dean A. Bangsund and F. Larry Leistritz*
More informationDMU 047 Livingston County Deer Management Unit
DMU 047 Livingston County Deer Management Unit Area Description The Livingston Deer Management Unit (DMU) lies in the Southern Lower Peninsula (SLP) region and covers only Livingston County. Most public
More informationIntroduction to Pennsylvania s Deer Management Program. Christopher S. Rosenberry Deer and Elk Section Bureau of Wildlife Management
Introduction to Pennsylvania s Deer Management Program Christopher S. Rosenberry Deer and Elk Section Bureau of Wildlife Management To anyone who has carefully studied the situation it is evident that
More informationDeer Management Unit 249
Deer Management Unit 249 Geographic Location: DMU 249 lies along the Lake Michigan shoreline and is comprised largely of Mackinac and Chippewa counties with a small portion of southeastern Luce County
More informationFall Wild Turkey Population Survey, 2010
This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/lrl.asp Fall Wild Turkey Population
More informationDMU 082 Wayne County Deer Management Unit
DMU 082 Wayne County Deer Management Unit Area Description The Wayne Deer Management Unit (DMU 082) lies in the Southeast Region and borders Lake Erie to the East and includes Celeron and Stony Islands
More information2010 Zone 3 Deer Season Recommendations
2010 Zone 3 Deer Season Recommendations Prepared by: Lou Cornicelli Big Game Program Coordinator Marrett D. Grund Farmland Deer Project Leader Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Fish
More informationMarch 14, Public Opinion Survey Results: Restoration of Wild Bison in Montana
March 14, 2011 TO: FROM: RE: Kit Fischer, National Wildlife Federation Kelly Middendorff, Public Opinion Survey Results: Restoration of Wild Bison in Montana Methodology This memo contains results of a
More informationFWC DEER HARVEST SURVEY: FINAL REPORT
FWC 2010-2011 DEER HARVEST SURVEY: FINAL REPORT Prepared for: FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION Prepared by: THE RESEARCH STAFF DRAFT REPORT 1.1 October 11, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...
More informationDeer Management Unit 152
Deer Management Unit 152 Geographic Location: Deer Management Unit (DMU) 152 is 386 miles 2 in size and is primarily in southwestern Marquette County. This DMU falls within the moderate snowfall zone and
More informationWildlife Ad Awareness & Attitudes Survey 2015
Wildlife Ad Awareness & Attitudes Survey 2015 Contents Executive Summary 3 Key Findings: 2015 Survey 8 Comparison between 2014 and 2015 Findings 27 Methodology Appendix 41 2 Executive Summary and Key Observations
More informationRANCHING Wildlife. Texas White-Tailed Deer 2017 Hunting Forecast
RANCHING Wildlife Texas White-Tailed Deer 2017 Hunting Forecast During most summers, I take a short break and head to Colorado, Wyoming, or somewhere out west to enjoy a respite from the hot South Texas
More informationReport to the Joint Standing Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
Report to the Joint Standing Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife As Required by 12 Section 10107-A White-tailed Deer Population Management Written By: Wildlife Management Staff, Inland Fisheries
More informationDeer Management Unit 349
Deer Management Unit 349 Geographic Location: DMU 349 lies along the lake Michigan shoreline and is largely comprised of western Mackinac county with small portions of southern Luce county and southeastern
More information2005 Arkansas Nongame Wildlife Conservation Survey
2005 Arkansas Nongame Wildlife Conservation Survey by Survey Research Center Institute of Government University of Arkansas at Little Rock 2801 South University Avenue Little Rock Arkansas 72204 501.569.8561
More informationKansas Deer Report Seasons
Kansas Deer Report 215-16 Seasons I. Current Harvest Hunter harvest of deer during the 215-16 seasons was estimated to be 95,813, 2.% more than the 93,94 deer taken in 214-15 (see table below for breakdown
More informationDeer Management Unit 122
Deer Management Unit 122 Area Description DMU 122 is located in south Dickinson County and includes a small portion of west central Menominee County. It encompasses 163 sq. miles and has remained unchanged
More informationDeer Management in Maryland -Overview. Brian Eyler Deer Project Leader
Deer Management in Maryland -Overview Brian Eyler Deer Project Leader Management History -Pre-colonial/Colonial Deer abundant Important to eastern tribes Legislatively protected in Maryland 1729 Nearly
More informationMinnesota Deer Population Goals. East Central Uplands Goal Block
Minnesota Deer Population Goals East Central Uplands Goal Block Minnesota DNR Section of Wildlife, 2015 Final Deer Population Goals Block 4: East Central Uplands The following pages provide a description
More informationDEER HUNT RESULTS ON ALABAMA WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREAS ANNUAL REPORT, CHRISTOPHER W. COOK STUDY LEADER MAY, 2006
DEER HUNT RESULTS ON ALABAMA WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREAS ANNUAL REPORT, 2005-2006 CHRISTOPHER W. COOK STUDY LEADER MAY, 2006 ALABAMA DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES Federal Aid Project funded
More informationDeer Management Unit 252
Deer Management Unit 252 Geographic Location: Deer Management Unit (DMU) 252 is 297 miles 2 in size and is primarily in southeastern Marquette, southwestern Alger and northwestern Delta County. This DMU
More informationATTITUDES AND CHARACTERISTICS OF AUSTRALIAN RECREATIONAL HUNTERS
ATTITUDES AND CHARACTERISTICS OF AUSTRALIAN RECREATIONAL HUNTERS Greg Baxter 1, Neal Finch 2, Peter Murray 2, Julia Hoy 2 1. School of Geography, Planning & Environmental Management, The University of
More informationFWC DEER HARVEST SURVEY: FINAL REPORT
FWC 2007-2008 DEER HARVEST SURVEY: FINAL REPORT Prepared for: FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION Prepared by: VAI November 3, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION... 1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS...
More informationDMU 056 Midland County Deer Management Unit
DMU 056 Midland County Deer Management Unit Area Description The Midland County Deer Management Unit (DMU) 056 is in the Northern Lower Peninsula (NLP) Region. It has roughly 333, 440 acres and consists
More informationThe Greater Sage-Grouse:
The Greater Sage-Grouse: Hunter opinions regarding potential conservation strategies in eleven western states For: National Wildlife Federation October 30, 2014 PO Box 6435 Fernandina Beach, FL 32035 Tel
More information2001 Illinois Light Goose Conservation Action Survey Report
HumanDimensions R e s e a r c h P r o g r a m 2001 Illinois Light Goose Conservation Action Survey Report Federal Aid Project Number W-112-R-10 Job Number 101.6 Wildlife Restoration Brent Manning, Director
More informationNew Jersey Trapper Harvest, Recreational and Economic Survey
Summary Mail questionnaires were sent to 509 trappers requesting harvest, recreational and socioeconomic information for the 2003-04 trapping season. Survey results indicate that resident trappers are
More informationHigh Plains Landowner Survey 2006: Farmers, Ranchers, and Conservation
High Plains Landowner Survey 2006: Farmers, Ranchers, and Conservation Playa Lakes Joint Venture Report Prepared by D.J. Case & Associates October 2006 Final Report to Playa Lakes Joint Venture From: Daniel
More informationPublic Opinion. Assistant Professor Department of Life Sciences Communication UW-Madison. & Environmental Communication Specialist
Public Opinion About VHS and AIS in Wisconsin Bret Shaw Assistant Professor Department of Life Sciences Communication UW-Madison & Environmental Communication Specialist UW Extension Badger Poll Methodology
More informationWATERFOWL HUNTING IN MINNESOTA. A study of people who hunted for waterfowl in Minnesota from 2000 through Final Report
WATERFOWL HUNTING IN MINNESOTA A study of people who hunted for waterfowl in Minnesota from 2000 through 2004 Final Report A cooperative study conducted by: Minnesota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research
More informationFINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON RESIDENT CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT Questions and Answers
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON RESIDENT CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT Questions and Answers The following document answers some common questions about the issue of overabundant resident Canada goose
More informationTRAPPING HARVEST STATISTICS. Division of Fish and Wildlife 500 Lafayette Road, Box 20 Saint Paul, MN (651)
TRAPPING HARVEST STATISTICS Division of Fish and Wildlife 500 Lafayette Road, Box 20 Saint Paul, MN 55155-4020 (651) 259-5207 289 290 2010 TRAPPER HARVEST SURVEY Margaret Dexter, Wildlife Research Unit
More informationTRCP National Sportsmen s Survey Online/phone survey of 1,000 hunters and anglers throughout the United States
#17144 TRCP National Sportsmen s Survey Online/phone survey of 1,000 hunters and anglers throughout the United States Methodology Public Opinion Strategies conducted a national survey of N =1,000 voters
More informationMARYLAND RESIDENTS, LANDOWNERS, AND HUNTERS ATTITUDES TOWARD DEER HUNTING AND DEER MANAGEMENT
MARYLAND RESIDENTS, LANDOWNERS, AND HUNTERS ATTITUDES TOWARD DEER HUNTING AND DEER MANAGEMENT Prepared for the Maryland Department of Natural Resources in cooperation with the University of Delaware by
More informationDMU 361 Fremont Deer Management Unit Newaygo, Oceana, N. Muskegon Counties
DMU 361 Fremont Deer Management Unit Newaygo, Oceana, N. Muskegon Counties Area Description The Fremont Deer Management Unit (DMU 361) was established in 2013. It lies within the Southwest Region and covers
More informationWhite-tailed Deer Management in Urban/Suburban Environments: Planning for Success
White-tailed Deer Management in Urban/Suburban Environments: Planning for Success KEVIN SCHWAUSCH Technical Guidance Biologist Texas Parks and Wildlife WTD were once considered to be threatened in Texas
More informationFishing License Renewals and Angler Lifestyles 2015 Angler Participation Research Summary Report
Fishing License Renewals and Angler Lifestyles 2015 Angler Participation Research Summary Report Released March 2016 Final Report Background Produced for the American Sportfishing Association by Southwick
More informationDeer Management Unit 127
Deer Management Unit 127 Area Description Deer Management Unit (DMU) 127 is 328 sq. miles in size and is found in far western Gogebic County surrounding Ironwood, Bessemer and adjacent rural communities.
More informationArchery Gun Muzzleloader Total Bull Cow Bull Cow Bull Cow Bull Cow
DAVE MCGOWEN/RPS2017 In 2016-17, elk harvest totaled 315 bulls and cows, an increase of five over the previous year. ELK Elk seasons on private lands ran concurrently with established deer seasons, except
More informationNational Duck Hunter Survey 2005 National Report
National Duck Hunter Survey 2005 National Report National Flyway Council and Wildlife Management Institute February 3, 2006 Don Childress, Chair Steve Williams, President National Flyway Council Wildlife
More informationAN ASSESSMENT OF NEW JERSEY RESIDENT HUNTER OPINION ON CROSSBOW USE
AN ASSESSMENT OF NEW JERSEY RESIDENT HUNTER OPINION ON CROSSBOW USE Survey mailed: December 2007 Data analyzed: January 2008 Division of Fish and Wildlife David Chanda, Director Larry Herrighty, Assistant
More informationDeer Management in Maryland. Brian Eyler Deer Project Leader Maryland DNR
Deer Management in Maryland Brian Eyler Deer Project Leader Maryland DNR 301-842-0332 beyler@dnr.state.md.us General Behavior Social groups Social hierarchy Home range Nocturnal Bedding Food Habits Ruminants
More informationMinnesota Deer Population Goals
This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/lrl.asp Minnesota Deer Population
More informationMANAGED LANDS DEER PERMITS WHITE-TAILED DEER PROGRAM INFORMATION General Information
MANAGED LANDS DEER PERMITS WHITE-TAILED DEER PROGRAM INFORMATION 2011-2012 General Information The Managed Lands Deer Permit (MLDP) program allows landowners involved in a formal management program to
More informationTRAPPING HARVEST STATISTICS. Division of Fish and Wildlife 500 Lafayette Road, Box 20 Saint Paul, MN (651)
TRAPPING HARVEST STATISTICS Division of Fish and Wildlife 500 Lafayette Road, Box 20 Saint Paul, MN 55155-4020 (651) 259-5207 265 266 2014 TRAPPER HARVEST SURVEY INTRODUCTION Margaret Dexter, Wildlife
More informationMinnesota Deer Population Goals
Minnesota Deer Population Goals Superior Uplands Arrowhead Goal Block Minnesota DNR Section of Wildlife, 2015 Final Deer Population Goals Block 1: Superior Uplands Arrowhead The following pages provide
More informationTRAPPING HARVEST STATISTICS. Division of Fish and Wildlife 500 Lafayette Road, Box 20 Saint Paul, MN (651)
TRAPPING HARVEST STATISTICS Division of Fish and Wildlife 500 Lafayette Road, Box 20 Saint Paul, MN 55155-4020 (651) 259-5207 285 286 INTRODUCTION 2015 TRAPPER HARVEST SURVEY Margaret Dexter, Wildlife
More informationEnclosed, please find the 2018 Spotlight Deer Survey Report and Recommendations that we have prepared for your review and records.
July 26, 2018 YO Ranchlands Landowner Association 1323 Whispering Pines Houston, TX 77055 To the Wildlife Committee: Enclosed, please find the 2018 Spotlight Deer Survey Report and Recommendations that
More information2015 Deer Population Goal Setting
Deer advisory team recommendations Block 4: East Central Uplands The following pages represent deer population goals recommended by the 2015 deer advisory team for Block 4: East Central Uplands (permit
More information2018 Season Waterfowl Hunter Survey Summary. Presented by Josh Richardson, Sr. Biologist Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation
2018 Season Waterfowl Hunter Survey Summary Presented by Josh Richardson, Sr. Biologist Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation Background Waterfowl hunting season and limits are determined by both
More informationThe 2001 Economic Benefits of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife Watching in MISSOURI. Prepared by:
The 2001 Economic Benefits of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife Watching in MISSOURI Prepared by: Southwick Associates, Inc. PO Box 6435 Fernandina Beach, FL 32035 Ph (904) 277-9765 Fax (904) 261-1145 Email:
More informationNORTH DAKOTA STATE REPORT June 2016
Terry Steinwand, Director North Dakota Game and Fish Department 100 N. Bismarck Expressway Bismarck, ND 58501 NORTH DAKOTA STATE REPORT June 2016 2016 Deer Season Set North Dakota s 2016 deer season is
More informationDKS & WASHINGTON COUNTY Washington County Transportation Survey
PREPARED FOR: DKS & WASHINGTON COUNTY Washington County Transportation Survey April 2013 PREPARED BY: DHM RESEARCH (503) 220-0575 239 NW 13 th Ave., #205, Portland, OR 97209 www.dhmresearch.com 1 INTRODUCTION
More informationTeton County Related Hunting and Fishing Spending, For the Wyoming Wildlife Federation. David T. Taylor & Thomas Foulke
Teton County Related Hunting and Fishing Spending, 2015 For the Wyoming Wildlife Federation University of Wyoming, Department of Agricultural & Applied Economics David T. Taylor & Thomas Foulke 1 February
More informationInternet Use Among Illinois Hunters: A Ten Year Comparison
HumanDimensions R e s e a r c h P r o g r a m Internet Use Among Illinois Hunters: A Ten Year Comparison Illinois Natural History Survey Prairie Research Institute University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
More informationJob Title: Game Management, Subsection B Game Management Predator and Furbearer Management. SPECIES: Predatory and Furbearing Mammals
Job Title:, Subsection B SPECIES: Predatory and Furbearing Mammals PREDATORY AND FURBEARING MAMMALS APPROACHES (2012 data not summarized at the time of this report.) 1. Provide opportunity for 75,000 hunter
More informationMonitoring Population Trends of White-tailed Deer in Minnesota Marrett Grund, Farmland Wildlife Populations and Research Group
Monitoring Population Trends of White-tailed Deer in Minnesota - 2014 Marrett Grund, Farmland Wildlife Populations and Research Group INTRODUCTION White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) represent one
More informationCHECKS AND BALANCES. OVERVIEW Students become managers of a herd of animals in a paper-pencil, discussionbased
CHECKS AND BALANCES 5 OVERVIEW Students become managers of a herd of animals in a paper-pencil, discussionbased activity. BACKGROUND White Tailed Deer White-tailed deer have always been a part of the forest
More informationDMU 045 Leelanau County Deer Management Unit
DMU 045 Leelanau County Deer Management Unit Area Description The Leelanau County Deer Management Unit (DMU 045) is in the Northern Lower Peninsula Region (NLP). It has roughly 7,100 acres of State Forest
More informationHUNTERS OPINIONS ON SHOOTING DEER OVER SUPPLEMENTAL FEED OR CORN
HUNTERS OPINIONS ON SHOOTING DEER OVER SUPPLEMENTAL FEED OR CORN Conducted for the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks by Responsive Management 5 HUNTERS OPINIONS ON SHOOTING DEER
More informationDMU 332 Huron, Sanilac and Tuscola Counties Deer Management Unit
DMU 332 Huron, Sanilac and Tuscola Counties Deer Management Unit Area Description The Greenleaf Deer Management Unit (DMU 332) lies in the Southeast Region of the Southern Lower Peninsula (SLP) and covers
More informationPATHS TO PARTICIPATION. How to help hunters and target shooters try new shooting sports activities.
PATHS TO PARTICIPATION How to help hunters and target shooters try new shooting sports activities. Overview The purpose of this project is to help improve hunting and shooting sports marketing efforts
More informationJob Title: Game Management, Subsection B Game Management Mountain Lion. SPECIES: Mountain Lion
SPECIES: Goal: Manage the mountain lion population, its numbers and distribution, as an important part of Arizona s fauna and to provide mountain lion hunting recreation opportunity while maintaining existing
More informationDMU 053 Mason County Deer Management Unit
DMU 053 Mason County Deer Management Unit Area Description Mason County Deer Management Unit is in the Northern Lower Peninsula Region (NLP) on the Lake Michigan coast. Only 17% of the land base is public
More informationMinnesota Deer Population Goals. Sand Plain Big Woods Goal Block
Minnesota Deer Population Goals Sand Plain Big Woods Goal Block Minnesota DNR Section of Wildlife, 2015 Final Deer Population Goals Block 5: Sand Plain Big Woods The following pages provide a description
More informationWhite-tailed Deer Age Report from the Deer Harvest
White-tailed Deer Age Report from the 2016 Deer Harvest The Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department has made a concerted effort, beginning in 2015, to increase the amount of age data collected from harvested
More informationmake people aware of the department s actions for improving the deer population monitoring system,
Investing in Wisconsin s Whitetails 1 Over the last 60 years, the department has developed a deer herd monitoring and management system that seeks to use the best science and data possible. The deer monitoring
More informationBig Game Season Structure, Background and Context
To: Members of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission From: Danielle Isenhart, Regulations Manager Date: April 16, 2018 Re: 2020-2024 Big Game Season Structure, Background and Context At the May Commission
More informationThe 2005 Waterfowl Hunting Season in Minnesota: A Study of Hunters Opinions and Activities. White-winged scoter. Final Report
This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/lrl.asp The 2005 Waterfowl
More informationTRAPPING HARVEST STATISTICS. Division of Fish and Wildlife 500 Lafayette Road, Box 20 Saint Paul, MN (651)
TRAPPING HARVEST STATISTICS Division of Fish and Wildlife 500 Lafayette Road, Box 20 Saint Paul, MN 55155-4020 (651) 259-5207 265 266 2007 TRAPPER HARVEST SURVEY Margaret Dexter, Wildlife Research Unit
More informationMANAGED LANDS DEER PROGRAM INFORMATION. General Requirements
MANAGED LANDS DEER PROGRAM INFORMATION General Requirements The Managed Lands Deer Program (MLDP) is intended to foster and support sound management and stewardship of native wildlife and wildlife habitats
More informationResults from the 2012 Quail Action Plan Landowner Survey
Results from the 2012 Quail Action Plan Landowner Survey By Andrew W Burnett New Jersey DEP Division of Fish & Wildlife Mail Code 501 03 PO Box 420 Trenton 08625 0420 Abstract: A survey was conducted in
More informationDMU 065 Ogemaw County Deer Management Unit
DMU 065 Ogemaw County Deer Management Unit Area Description Ogemaw County Deer Management Unit is in the Northern Lower Peninsula Region (NLP). It has roughly 99,000 acres of public land which is about
More informationDeer Management Unit 255
Deer Management Unit 255 Area Description DMU 255 is located primarily in northern Menominee County, but also extends into a small portion of Dickinson, Marquette, and Delta counties. It has totaled 463
More informationUSDA APHIS WILDLIFE SERVICES ACTIVITIES SUMMARY REPORT 2013 WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM TOWNSHIP OF UPPER ST. CLAIR (September 2013)
USDA APHIS WILDLIFE SERVICES ACTIVITIES SUMMARY REPORT 2013 WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM TOWNSHIP OF UPPER ST. CLAIR (September 2013) USDA APHIS Wildlife Services (WS) was requested by the Township
More informationDMU 057 Missaukee County Deer Management Unit
DMU 057 Missaukee County Deer Management Unit Area Description Missaukee County Deer Management Unit is in the Northern Lower Peninsula Region (NLP). It has over 100,000 acres of state land, just over
More informationNEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE HARVEST MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR HUNTING SEASONS
NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE HARVEST MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR HUNTING SEASONS Draft Page 2 of 15 TABLE OF CONTENTS Schedule for formulating harvest management guidelines..............................................
More informationAlberta Conservation Association 2016/17 Project Summary Report. Primary ACA staff on project: Stefanie Fenson, Jeff Forsyth and Jon Van Dijk
Alberta Conservation Association 2016/17 Project Summary Report Project Name: Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Land Management Program Manager: Darren Dorge Project Leader: Stefanie Fenson Primary
More informationMule Deer. Dennis D. Austin. Published by Utah State University Press. For additional information about this book. Accessed 3 May :46 GMT
Mule Deer Dennis D. Austin Published by Utah State University Press Austin, D.. Mule Deer: A Handbook for Utah Hunters and Landowners. Logan: Utah State University Press, 2010. Project MUSE., https://muse.jhu.edu/.
More information2009 SMALL GAME HUNTER MAIL SURVEY
INTRODUCTION 2009 SMALL GAME HUNTER MAIL SURVEY Margaret Dexter, Wildlife Research Unit The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Research unit annually conducts
More informationMississippi s Wildlife Management Areas
Evaluating Hunter Satisfaction and Perceptions of Mississippi s Wildlife Management Areas Forest and Wildlife Research Center Mississippi State University Research Bulletin The Forest and Wildlife Research
More informationDMU 005 Antrim County Deer Management Unit
DMU 005 Antrim County Deer Management Unit Area Description Antrim County Deer Management Unit is in the Northern Lower Peninsula Region (NLP). It has roughly 74 square miles (47,451 acres) of public land
More informationMatching respondents over time and assessing non-response bias. Respondents sometimes left age or sex blank (n=52 from 2001 or 2004 and n=39 from
Supporting Information Matching respondents over time and assessing non-response bias. Respondents sometimes left age or sex blank (n=52 from 2001 or 2004 and n=39 from 2009). When age or sex was blank
More informationALABAMA HUNTING SURVEY
ALABAMA HUNTING SURVEY 2010-2011 SEASON Randy Liles STUDY LEADER Federal Assistance Project funded by your purchase of hunting licenses and equipment. ALABAMA DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES
More informationNORTH DAKOTA STATE REPORT June 2018
Terry Steinwand, Director North Dakota Game and Fish Department 100 N. Bismarck Expressway Bismarck, ND 58501 NORTH DAKOTA STATE REPORT June 2018 Deer Season Set North Dakota s 2018 deer season is set
More informationJob Title: Game Management, Subsection B Game Management Mountain Lion
Job Title:, Subsection B Goal: Manage the mountain lion population, its numbers and distribution, as an important part of Arizona s fauna and to provide mountain lion hunting recreation opportunity while
More information